Administrative Law - Departmental Proceedings Against Retired Employee – Appeal under Articles 226 and 227 challenging departmental proceedings – Show cause notice and charge sheet issued post-retirement for transactions dated beyond 4 years – Held, initiation of proceedings beyond 4 years after the event is barred under Regulation 48 – Proceedings must be initiated within service period or within 4 years post-event – LPA allowed, show cause notice and charge sheet quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Time Bar for Proceedings – Analysis – Date of initiation is considered as issuance of the charge sheet, not the show cause notice – Regulation 48 restricts initiation of proceedings to within 4 years of the event – Proceedings against appellant initiated beyond permissible period – Appeal allowed based on time-bar principle. [Paras 3, 6]

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman and Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court – Principle that charge sheet date marks initiation of proceedings reaffirmed – Consistent interpretation across similar regulations upholding protection of retirees from prolonged liability. [Paras 3, 7]

Decision – Quashing of Departmental Proceedings – Appeal allowed – Learned Single Judge's order set aside – Show cause notice and charge sheet quashed as proceedings initiated beyond the permissible period – Appellant protected under Regulation 48, proceedings deemed an abuse of process. [Paras 11-13]

Administrative Law - Estoppel and Selection Criteria – Appeal against selection process for Post Graduate Teachers – No selection criteria in advertisement; criteria disclosed at result declaration – Held, candidates estopped from challenging selection criteria after participating in selection process and not being selected – Criteria managed by experts; no written examination held – LPA dismissed due to estoppel and absence of challenge during selection process. [Paras 2, 10]

Judicial Review and Delay – Analysis – Findings that appellants participated with knowledge of criteria, thus estopped from challenge – Courts uphold that participants cannot challenge criteria post participation – Consideration of prolonged delay (nearly a decade) since finalization of process and appointments – Challenge rejected on grounds of delay, laches, and potential inequity to selected candidates. [Paras 10, 15]

Role of Selection Boards – Held – Selection criteria framed by experts and members appointed by statute – No evidence of mala fides against Selection Committee – Selection based on academic excellence and interview marks (67:33 ratio) upheld – No discretion misused by Board. [Paras 2-5, 8, 11]

Precedents and Principles – Reference to judgments emphasizing that candidates who participate in a process cannot later challenge the criteria if not selected – Principle of estoppel applied – Selection process considered fair and in accordance with laid-down criteria. [Paras 3, 6, 10]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of Single Judge upheld – No illegality or infirmity in selection process – Consideration of elapsed time and absence of specific allegations against Selection Committee – Appeals lack merit, dismissed accordingly. [Paras 15-16]

Industrial Disputes - Termination of Daily Wager - Reinstatement - Appeal against setting aside of Labour Court's award for reinstatement - Appellant's termination without notice, enquiry, or compensation - Daily wages included rest days - Appellant completed 240 days of work - Section 25-F violation found - Labour Court's award reinstated. [Paras 13-15]

Calculation of Continuous Service - Inclusion of Rest Days - Analysis - Daily wages included rest days - Sundays and holidays to be counted for 240-day calculation under Section 25-F - Single Bench's exclusion of rest days incorrect - Labour Court correctly calculated continuous service. [Paras 10-12]

Judicial Review - Limited Scope under Article 226 - Held - Writ court should not act as appellate authority - No interference with Tribunal's findings unless perverse or erroneous - Single Bench erred in revisiting evidence and substituting its opinion. [Paras 14-15]

Decision - Reinstatement with Continuity of Service - Labour Court's findings on 240-day completion and Section 25-F non-compliance upheld - Single Bench's order set aside - Appeal allowed - Appellant entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. [Para 15]

Criminal Law – Restoration of Dismissed Complaint – Jurisdiction of Magistrate – Petition against order of JMFC allowing the restoration of a complaint dismissed for non-prosecution. Held, once a case is finally decided, the Court becomes functus officio and lacks the power to review or recall the order on any ground. The restoration order is set aside as illegal. [Paras 1-18]

Function of Magistrate Post-Final Decision – Analysis – Held, a magistrate has no inherent jurisdiction to review or recall a final order once a complaint is dismissed. Dismissal for default or non-prosecution is a final order and can only be altered by a superior court. Reliance on irrelevant judgments under different statutory frameworks, such as the Consumer Protection Act, is misplaced. [Paras 8-16]

Decision – Quashing of Restoration Order – Court quashes the impugned order of restoration and reaffirms the original dismissal of the complaint. Clarifies that respondents may seek appropriate legal remedies as per law. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law - Multiple FIRs for Same Offence – Petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of second FIR – Second FIR registered under Sections 379 and 411 IPC for the same theft and recovery incident – Held, filing of the second FIR is impermissible as the incident and occurrence are the same – Two FIRs can subsist only if there are two rival versions in respect of the same incident – Petition allowed, second FIR quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Principle of 'Sameness' in FIRs – Analysis – Test of 'sameness' applied to determine whether both FIRs relate to the same incident and occurrence – Held, both FIRs pertain to the theft of the same scooter and its recovery, thus forming part of the same transaction – Registration of the second FIR violates the principle of 'sameness'. [Paras 10-11]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that multiple FIRs for the same incident are not permissible unless there are distinct and separate incidents or rival versions – Second FIR for the same offence considered an abuse of the process of law. [Paras 9, 11]

Decision – Quashing of Second FIR – Petition allowed – Second FIR No. 672 dated 18.12.2015 registered under Sections 379 and 411 IPC at Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed. [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Procedure - Default Bail – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – Appeal against the denial of default bail – Challan presented within the statutory period but alleged to be incomplete due to lack of sanction under the Explosive Substances Act – Held, sanction obtained and submitted before filing the application for default bail – Challan considered complete – No entitlement to default bail – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Completeness of Challan – Analysis – The challan filed on 15.11.2019 included material for prosecution – Sanction under the Explosive Substances Act granted on 10.11.2020 – Application for default bail filed on 14.12.2020 – Held, challan filed within statutory time was complete with due sanction – Default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. not applicable. [Paras 7-9]

Judicial Interpretation – Legal Position – Clarification of the right to default bail if the investigation report (challan) is not complete within the stipulated time – Legal provisions and judicial precedents establish that default bail is not warranted if the challan is completed before the application for default bail is made. [Para 11]

Investigation and Jurisdiction – Facts and Circumstances – Forensic examination revealed high-explosive materials leading to NIA involvement – The procedural sequence justified transfer to NIA and completion of formalities before default bail application – National and international ramifications considered. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No infirmity in the order denying default bail – Challan completed and sanctions obtained within necessary timelines – Application for default bail found baseless – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 9-10]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Compounding of Offence – Petition under Sections 482 and 397 CrPC seeking compounding of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Powers under Section 147 of the NI Act can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings including trial, appeal, or revision – Courts encouraged to be liberal in exercising such powers – Offence compounded and petitioner acquitted. [Paras 1-11]

Proclaimed Person Declaration – Setting Aside – Declaration of petitioner as proclaimed person due to non-appearance on the judgment date – Petition allowed setting aside the declaration as a proclaimed person – Petitioner's settlement with respondent accepted. [Paras 1, 11]

Settlement and Compromise – Analysis – Compounding mechanism under Section 147 NI Act prioritizes resolution over punitive action – Settlement reached between parties with full payment to the complainant – No FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC for proclaimed offender status – Petitioner released on bail upon payment of costs to District Legal Services Authority. [Paras 2, 3, 10-11]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court judgments affirming the permissibility of compounding at various stages of proceedings – Emphasis on facilitating settlements and minimizing litigation – Compounding permissible even post-conviction. [Paras 4-6]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaint and summoning order quashed – Petitioner acquitted based on settlement – Declaration of proclaimed person set aside – Petitioner directed to deposit costs with District Legal Services Authority. [Para 11]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Summary vs. Summons Trial – Petition for quashing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Complaint filed for dishonour of cheque – Magistrate converted summary trial to summons trial without hearing parties – Held, non-compliance with hearing directive under Section 143 does not vitiate proceedings – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Irregularities and Vitiation of Proceedings – Analysis – Section 461 CrPC details irregularities vitiating proceedings – Magistrate's decision to try case as summons case is not such an irregularity – Non-compliance with proviso to Section 143 regarding hearing parties before converting trial mode does not invalidate proceedings. [Para 16]

Hearing Requirement under Section 143 – Clarification – Proviso to Section 143 requires hearing before converting summary trial to summons trial – Hearing intended to protect accused's rights in ongoing trial – Non-compliance before trial commencement less impactful, does not necessitate trial vitiation. [Paras 13-14]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court judgments – Mere procedural non-compliance under Section 143 not grounds for trial invalidation – Higher judiciary emphasizes substantive justice over procedural technicalities. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Procedural non-compliance does not vitiate trial – Petition lacks merit, dismissed – Trial Court directed to expedite main case conclusion. [Paras 19-20]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint – Section 482 CrPC – Complaint under Section 420 IPC read with Section 175-U of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 2015 – Petitioner, a Sarpanch, possessed two ration cards and did not disclose dues payable to Electricity Department – Such dues are a disqualification for a candidate – Magistrate summoned the Petitioner under Section 175-U – Held, cognizance of the offence could not be taken except on a complaint made by or under the authority of the State Election Commission – Initial action not in consonance with law, vitiates all subsequent proceedings – Petition allowed, complaint and summoning order quashed. [Paras 1-14]

Procedural Requirements and Jurisdiction – Analysis – Statutory provisions require complaints under Section 175-U to be initiated by the State Election Commission – Non-compliance with this pre-requisite invalidates the proceedings – High Court has jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where illegality is apparent. [Paras 10-11]

Legal Principles and Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court rulings on the necessity of lawful initiation of proceedings – Once the basis of proceedings is flawed, all subsequent actions fall – Legal maxim "sublatofundamentocadit opus" (foundation being removed, structure falls) applied. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaint dated 23.11.2016 and summoning order dated 26.04.2017 quashed – Proceedings initiated without proper authority deemed illegal – Petitioner's case upheld. [Paras 14]